Anchor Hanover Group (202438469)

Decision
Case ID	202438469
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Anchor Hanover Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat, located within a supported housing facility. She has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. She requested a transfer to help alleviate some health issues she was experiencing due to “temperature variations” in her current flat. The landlord declined her request because of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against her.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to an alternative property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to an alternative property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We found that the landlord:
1. Unreasonably delayed in informing the resident of its decision to refuse her transfer request. It also failed to provide the ASB information she had specifically requested in relation to the transfer refusal.
2. Offered the resident an appropriate amount of compensation for its complaint handling delays. However, it did not appropriately investigate all the issues she had raised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £325 made up as follows: £100 for its handling of her request to be transferred to an alternative property. £225 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the £175 already offered, plus an additional £50 for the failures identified in this report. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026
3	Complaint handling order The landlord must contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB. If so, it must respond to this in line with its complaints process.	No later than 23 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 May 2024	The resident’s representative made a complaint on her behalf, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her transfer request. She asked the landlord to reconsider her request based on her medical needs.
11 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It summarised the timeline of events and said: It was satisfied that it had followed its policies and procedures when considering the resident’s transfer request, including reviewing the supporting letter from her GP. However, it concluded that she did not meet the eligibility criteria due to reports of “ongoing ASB” made against her. It had previously offered to arrange for a contractor to assess the temperature in the resident’s flat, but she had declined the visit at the time. It added that this offer remained open should she wish to proceed. It apologised to the resident for its complaint handling delays and offered £75 compensation.
7 August 2024	The resident’s representative informed the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint because it had not addressed all the issues she had raised. She also wanted the landlord to provide the specific details of the ASB incidents that had been relied upon to justify rejecting her transfer request.
22 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It could not provide specific details of the ASB incidents until the resident confirmed the timeframe she was referring to. The resident was not eligible for a transfer to any other property that it owned. This position would not change while “there [were] continued reports of unacceptable behaviour” but this could be reviewed in the future. It respected the resident’s wishes to decline its offer to test and manage the temperature in her flat, but said the offer remained open. It apologised to the resident for its stage 2 complaint handling delays and offered her a further £100 compensation (total £175).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns and requests. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to arrange a transfer to an alternative property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Request to be transferred to an alternative property
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues impacted on her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
As mentioned earlier, the resident told us that her desired outcome was a transfer to alternative property. While it is not our role to direct landlords on housing stock management, we can assess whether the landlord handled the request in line with its applicable policies and procedures and explained the reasons for its decisions.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s extra care allocations and lettings policy, along with its associated staff guidance, set out that applicants requesting a move or transfer into a designated extra care facility “must have satisfactory housing and behaviour history”. It further states that an application may be rejected if the resident has engaged in ASB or is known to have seriously breached their tenancy conditions with a previous landlord.
On 14 January 2024, the resident requested a transfer to another flat. The landlord’s records show that, during a meeting with the resident and her care team on 7 March 2024 (to discuss reports of ASB), it noted her wish “to move into [the] void flat”. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the request internally or updated the resident on its progress. While the extra care allocations and lettings policy does not specify response timescales, landlords are still expected to act within a reasonable timeframe, particularly where a resident reports that their housing situation is affecting their health. In this case, the absence of any response or update from the landlord between 15 January 2024 and 4 April 2024 (an 11‑week period) was unreasonable.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord met with the resident again to discuss new reports of ASB that had been made against her. Within the resident’s request to make a complaint, she said she was unable to prepare for the meeting with the landlord on this date because it gave her “only 10 minutes notice”. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it appropriately apologised to the resident for its poor communication and confirmed that it could not find any evidence that it had sent her an appointment letter. However, it stated that it had verbally made her aware of the appointment the day prior, on 4 April 2024. Based on the available evidence, this was a fair response from the landlord, though it is good practice to send written confirmation of appointments (eg by email or text message).
The landlord’s internal records show that during the meeting on 5 April 2024, it verbally informed the resident that her transfer request had been refused because she did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined above. The landlord appropriately confirmed this in writing to the resident 2 working days later, on 9 April 2024. It also reiterated its position in its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. Specifically, it said the resident had “demonstrated conduct towards staff and residents during the process of allocating a property which [was] threatening, openly discriminatory and intimidating”. While it is not our role to establish whether any ASB reported against the resident happened, we find the landlord’s response in relation to this matter reasonable and based on the evidence available to it at the time. Nothing seen in this investigation suggests that the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions.
However, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she specifically asked the landlord to provide the details of the ASB incidents relied upon, “including the date, time, location, people involved and details which constituted [her] engaging in ASB.” This was a precise and reasonable request directly linked to the decision to refuse her transfer, and the landlord therefore had a duty to respond fully. Instead, it stated that it was unclear which incidents the resident was referring to, which demonstrated that it obstructed her request and put unfair evidential requirements on her. The landlord has since shown that it sent the resident a letter on 15 July 2025 containing a comprehensive list of ASB incidents from May 2023 to May 2025, and therefore no order has been made in relation to this point.
As mentioned earlier, within the resident’s request for a transfer on 14 January 2024, she reported that temperature fluctuations in her flat were causing health issues. The landlord’s records indicate that it discussed these concerns with her at the meeting on 5 April 2024 and that she declined an investigative repair visit. While offering an inspection was appropriate, the 11‑week delay to do so was unreasonable. Despite this, it was positive that the landlord repeated its offer of a repair appointment at both stage 1 and stage 2 to assess the temperature in the property, demonstrating that it took a solution-focused approach to address the resident’s concerns. It is noted that the resident declined this offer.
Within the landlord’s letter to the resident on 9 April 2024, it explained that it had considered the supporting medical letter provided by her GP but that it did not alter its decision to refuse her transfer request. By acknowledging the GP’s letter and confirming that it did not affect the outcome, the landlord demonstrated that it took the evidence into account while reasonably applying its policy requirements and eligibility criteria.
For the reasons outlined above, and taking account of the appropriate action taken by the landlord at times, we have made an overall finding of service failure. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to provide its written response within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord sets no acknowledgement timeframe but will aim to provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. However, our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) expects stage 2 escalation requests to be acknowledged within 5 working days.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints process. This is because:
1. The representative made the complaint on the resident’s behalf on 8 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 June 2024. This excessively exceeded its target timescales (35 working days against a target of 5 working days).
2. The landlord appropriately issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. This was within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. The representative requested to escalate the resident’s complaint on 7 August 2024. As they did not receive any acknowledgement from the landlord, they asked for an update on 19 September 2024. This was an expenditure of time which should not have been necessary. The landlord formally acknowledged the request on 24 September 2024. This unreasonably exceeded the timescales outlined in the Code (33 working days against a target of 5).
4. The landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 response on 22 October 2024. This was within 20 working days and therefore in accordance with its target timescales.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary payments may be awarded where it has failed to “provide a service in line with its published standards”. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays and offered her compensation at both stages of the complaints process. However, as we have not been provided the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, it is unclear how it arrived at awards of £75 at stage 1 and £100 at stage 2, particularly given that the delay at stage 1 was slightly longer. Nevertheless, we consider the total offer of £175 for the delays to be reasonable and consistent with our remedies guidance.
As we have already assessed the landlord’s lack of response at stage 2 (in relation to the resident’s request for ASB records) in the relevant section above, we have not made any further assessment on this matter.
Within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she expressed dissatisfaction with some comments that had allegedly been made about her. She also asked the landlord to confirm why it had not informed her in person or in writing after each ASB incident. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it asked her for further details on the matters so that it could investigate her concerns. However, these enquiries should have been made during the investigation phase rather than in the final response, to ensure a thorough fact‑finding process, avoid unnecessary delay, and give the resident a fair opportunity to have her concerns addressed before the complaint was concluded.
Therefore, while we are satisfied that the landlord offered appropriate redress for its complaint handling delays, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory overall.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Specifically, it did not provide an update on her transfer request for 11 weeks and introduced unnecessary obstacles when she asked for ASB details. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communication, including introducing clear timescales for responding to resident requests within its policies and staff guidance.